WhWhy y CanCanttWe Talk?

We Talk?

Working Together To Bridge theWorking Together To Bridge the Communications Gap TCommunications Gap Too SaSavvee LivLives es

A Guide for Public OfA Guide for Public Offfiicials cials

February 2003 NATIONAL TASK FORCE ON INTEROPERABILITY

Why Cant We Talk?

page2

On September 11, 1996, 5 years to the day before

the 9/11 terrorist attack, the Public Safety Wireless

Advisory Committee (PSWAC) released its

final report, which stated that unless immediate measures are taken to

alleviate spectrum shortfall and promote interoperabil

ity, public safety will not be able to adequately discharge their obligation to

protect life and property in a safe, efficient, and cost-effective manner. Several years later, public safety is still grappling with inadequate spectrum and radio

communication systems that do not communicate

with one another.

Why Cant We Talk?

Working Together to Bridge the Communications Gap to Save Lives

A Guide For Public Officials

In an era where technology can bring news, current events, and entertainment to the farthest reaches of the world, many law enforcement officers, firefighters, and emergency medical service personnel working in the same jurisdiction cannot communicate with one another. The inability of our public safety officials to readily communicate with one another threatens the publics safety and often results in unnecessary loss of lives and property. Recognizing that solutions to this national issue can only be achieved through cooperation between all levels of government, 18 national associations representing State and local elected and appointed officials and public safety officials formed a task force to address this issue. This guide is the result of the significant commitment by members of this task force who shared their knowledge, experience, and wisdom. Member associations include the following organizations.

Association of Public Safety Communications Officials International, Inc.

International Association of Chiefs of Police International Association of Fire Chiefs International City/County Management Association Major Cities Chiefs Major County Sheriffs Association National Association of Counties National Association of State Chief Information Officers National Association of State Telecommunications Directors National Conference of State Legislatures National Criminal Justice Association National Emergency Management Association National Governors Association National League of Cities National Public Safety Telecommunications Council National Sheriffs Association The Council of State Governments The United States Conference of Mayors

Why Cant We Talk?

page3 Table of Contents Executive Summary: Why Cant We Talk? .................................................................4

Chapter 1: Why Cant Public Safety Agencies Talk? ..................................................9 What Is Interoperability? ...........................................................................................9 Why Should Public Officials Care? .............................................................................9 What Is the Role of Public Officials? ........................................................................10

Chapter 2: Five Key Reasons Why Public Safety Agencies Cant Talk ......................15 Reason 1: Incompatible and Aging Communications Equipment ..............................16 Reason 2: Limited and Fragmented Funding.............................................................17 Reason 3: Limited and Fragmented Planning............19 Reason 4: Lack of Coordination and Cooperation ....................................................20 Reason 5: Limited and Fragmented Radio Spectrum.................................................21

Chapter 3: Are You Prepared? Assessing Interoperability ........................................23 What Is the Status of Your Public Safety Radio Communications? ............................23 What Radio Communications System Resources Do You Have?................................25 What Financial Resources Are Spent on Public Safety Communications?...................31 What Can I Do Right Now? Interim Solutions To Improve Interoperability...........30-31

Chapter 4: How Can You Achieve Interoperability? .................................................33 Developing a Plan for Improving Interoperability ......................................................33 Role of Elected and Appointed Officials in the Planning Process ...............................34 Planning Principles ..................................................................................................34

Chapter 5: Governance Structures for Improving Interoperability............................37 What Is a Governance Structure? .............................................................................37 Why Create a Governance Structure? .......................................................................37 The Additional Key ElementLeadership ..................................................................39 Guiding Principles for a Governance Structure..........................................................40 Examples of Mechanisms To Establish Governance Structures ..................................41

Chapter 6: Funding Strategies for Achieving Interoperability ..................................43 Developing a Funding Strategy.................................................................................43 Cost-cutting Measures ............................................................................................44 Presenting the Case for Funding Interoperability.......................................................46 Financing Methods ..................................................................................................47

Chapter 7: Why Radio Spectrum Matters To You ...................................................51 What Is Radio Spectrum? ........................................................................................51 What Has Been Done?.............................................................................................52 700 MHz and Digital Television ...............................................................................53 What About 800 MHz? ...........................................................................................54 Standards ...............................................................................................................54 Making Spectrum More Efficient .............................................................................55

Chapter 8: Conclusions ..........................................................................................57 Interoperability Assessment Tools...........................................................................61 References and Source Materials.............................................................................83 Recommended Websites .........................................................................................85 Federal Funding for Communications and Information-Sharing, Planning,

Development, and Equipment..............................................................................89 Glossary of Terms and Acronyms............................................................................91 Acknowledgements .................................................................................................97

For more information on interoperability, updated material, and supplemental resources to this guide, visit www.agileprogram.org/ntfi.

www.agileprogram.org/ntfi

Why Cant We Talk?

page4 Executive Summary Why Cant We Talk? NEW YORK CITYHundreds of firefighters and police officers rushed to a devastating, chaotic scene to rescue victims from the attack on the World Trade Center. As police and firefighters swarmed the building searching for survivors, incident commanders outside were hearing warnings from helicopters circling the scene from above that the towers were beginning to glow and were dangerously close to collapse. Radio communications were a lifeline for the hundreds of police officers who received the word to evacuate the buildingall but 60 police officers escaped with their lives. Tragically, hundreds of New York firefighters didnt receive that warning because they were using a different radio communications system. Totally unaware of the impending collapse, at least 121 firefighters, most within striking distance of safety, according to The New York Times, died. A report from the University of New Hampshire-based, ATLAS Project stated, From numerous interviews gathered as part of a fire department inquiry into the events of September 11th, it would appear that non-interoperability was at least partially responsible for the loss of 343 firefighters at the World Trade Center.

LITTLETON, COLORADOA few years earlier in Littleton, Colorado, 46 public safety agencies responded to the shooting spree inside Columbine High School. Precious minutes were lost because command personnel were forced to send runners to communicate crucial information. Incompatible radio communication systems were a significant factor, according to the Columbine Review Commission.

OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMASimilarly, in the immediate aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing, the ATLAS Project reports that first responders had to use runners to carry messages from one command center to another because the responding agencies used different emergency radio channels, different frequencies, and different radio systems.

OHIO RIVER, INDIANAAs floodwaters from the Ohio River rose to record levels, the Department of Natural Resources, the Indiana National Guard, the State Emergency Management Agency, and local law enforcement agencies fought to protect the lives and the property of people in dozens of southern Indiana communities, towns, and cities. According to the Indiana Department of Natural Resources, communication between the responding agencies was crucial to the rescue effort. However, the only interagency communications were public safety officials literally yelling to each other across the flooded rivers because their radio systems were incompatible.

Why Cant We Talk?

page5 Did you know? You grew up watching cop shows on television. When the police were in trouble, they could pick up the radio anywhere, anytime, and help would instantly arrive. In reality, this is often not the case. Did you know that law enforcement, emergency medical services (EMS), and firefighters sometimes have to juggle as many as five different radios because each agency communicates on different systems? Do you know how often agencies cannot talk to one another or to agencies in their neighboring cities, counties, or States? Is yours one of them?

While events of the magnitude of 9/11 or Oklahoma City do not occur every day, there are many other daily events that require different agencies and different jurisdictions to be able to communicate with one another. Incidents such as traffic accidents, missing children, fires, high-speed chases, rescues, and chemical spills occur with frightening regularity and they know no boundaries. When they occur in your community, region, or State, will your public safety agencies be able to talk to one another?

What is interoperability?

It is the ability of public safety agencies to talk to one another via radio communication systemsto exchange voice and/or data with one another on demand, in real time, when needed. Most people assume that public safety is already interoperable. In many cases, public safety officers cannot even talk to their own agencies.1

Public perceptions are shaped by the news shows and articles, movies, and television that tell a different story from the true state of public safety communications. The public that reads news stories about computers in patrol cars, amazing life-saving technologies in rescue vehicles, and the latest state-of-the-art dispatch center may find it difficult to believe that their public safety agencies cannot talk to one another.

Public safety agencies cant talk to each otherwhy not?

Five key reasonsincompatible and aging communications equipment, limited and fragmented funding, limited and fragmented planning, a

It is more than obvious that something is wrong when the only way for police officers from neighboring departments to communicate with one another is to pull their cruisers side by side and roll down their windows.

TechBeat, Fall 2000, National Institute of Justice

1. Interoperability refers to the ability to exchange both voice and data communications. When the word talk is used throughout this guide, it refers to data as well as voice communications.

Why Cant We Talk?

page6

Los Angeles, July 2002 According to Associated

Press reports, officers responding to the shoot

ing at the El Al ticket counter at Los Angeles

International Airport missed crucial information

because they werent using the same radio

frequency.

lack of coordination and cooperation, and limited and fragmented radio spectrum. This guide examines these traditional critical barriers to interoperability and provides information on what needs to be done to overcome them and how you as a public official can help.

WHY CANT WE TALK? Working Together To Bridge the Communications Gap To Save Lives, was developed as a result of the ongoing dialogue among State and local elected and appointed officials and public safety officials. In this guide, these types of officials are referred to collectively as public officials. Public officials include elected and appointed officials at every level of government, working to serve the public in a variety of roles, such as governors, mayors, State legislators, city and county council members, city and county managers, police chiefs, fire chiefs, sheriffs, chief information officers, and chief communications officers. This guide is designed to provide public officials with easy-tocomprehend information on interoperability.

Why Cant Public Safety Agencies Talk?, discusses the definition of interoperability, the importance of interoperability to public officials, and the role public officials play in interoperability.

Five Key Reasons Why Public Safety Agencies Cant Talk, discusses the barriers to interoperabilityincompatible and aging communications equipment, limited and fragmented planning and funding, a lack of coordination and cooperation, and limited and fragmented radio communications spectrum.

Are You Prepared?, discusses evaluation and assessment of public safety radio communication systems and financial resources and provides interim technology strategies to achieve interoperability.

How Can You Achieve Interoperability?, discusses planning for interoperability, and the role of Elected and Appointed Officials in the planning process.

Governance Structures for Improving Interoperability, discusses what a Governance Structure is and why it is necessary, examples of mechanisms for creating governance structures and the key element of leadership.

Funding Strategies for Achieving Interoperability, discusses developing a funding strategy, cost-cutting measures, presenting a case, presenting the case for funding interoperability and financing methods.

Why Cant We Talk?

page7 Why Radio Spectrum Matters to You, provides a historical perspective of spectrum, a discussion of the additional spectrum that has been allocated but not yet made available to public safety, and technologies that can increase the efficient use of spectrum.

Where are you now? What is the status of your public safety radio communications?

The basic questions to consider are: What types of emergencies typically occur in your community, region, or State and which public safety agencies would respond to each of them? Some incidents like traffic accidents occur daily. How about major crimes like bank robberies or large-scale fires or natural disasters like hurricanes? Who needs to talk to one another every day? Who should be able to communicate and share data in the first 8 hours of an emergency? Who will need to be added to that initial group if the emergency continues for longer than 8 hours? Once you know the answers to these questions, assess your resources. For example, what existing communications infrastructure such as radio towers do you already have? What financial resources are budgeted for public safety communications? This guide provides suggested tools for beginning to answer these and other questions.

How much will this cost?

There are several issues to consider, including what is already being spent on public safety communications in your area and how much it will cost if you do not develop interoperability. Planning for interoperability can be incorporated into the process of replacing and upgrading radio communication systems. Individual costs will depend on the state of communications in your area and which short-and long-term direction you choose to follow. The nationwide investment in radio systems and supporting infrastructures is substantial. As agencies replace aging equipment and adopt new technologies, the amount of money invested in communications equipment will continue to grow. This guide provides ideas on how to reduce costs and identify and develop financial resources to improve interoperability.

Why Cant We Talk?

page8 How can you achieve interoperability? Planning is critically important. This guide provides information on planning, establishing governance structures, and interim technology strategies.

A vision for the futureworking together to bridge the communications gap to save lives

Imagine a different public safety radio communications future. A future where no person loses a life or is injured because available information could not be shared. A future where emergency responses are coordinated, where information is shared in real time, where precious minutes are not wasted, and where emergencies are handled more effectively and safely. That future can become a reality. Your role as a public official gives you the opportunity to take the initiative. Your constituents and colleagues need to be educated about the importance of reliable, interoperable, robust public safety radio communication systems that will make it possible for local, State, and Federal public safety agencies to talk to one another by radio, to share data, to coordinate life-saving operations, and to provide a basic level of public safety. This is a job that requires public officials across jurisdictions to work together for the common goodto plan, fund, build, and govern inter-operable public safety communications systems. Public officials at all levels need to put aside individual political concerns to collaborate on acceptable communications interoperability for emergency response and incident prevention. It begins with a dialogue among the stakeholders.

This guide is for you

This guide was written to provide guidance for youpublic officials at all levelslocal, regional, State, and national. This includes, among others, governors, mayors, council members, legislators, city and county executives, city and county managers, police chiefs, fire chiefs, emergency management personnel, and chief information and technology officers. Because the guide was written for many audiences, it is intentionally broad in its message and not specifically tailored for one group or level of government. The message needs to be broad because achieving interoperability will require partnerships from youpublic officials from all levels of governmentworking together to get the job done.

Why Cant We Talk?

page9 CHAPTER 1: Why Cant Public Safety Agencies Talk?

What is interoperability?

Interoperability is the ability of public safety service and support providerslaw enforcement, firefighters, EMS, emergency management, the public utilities, transportation, and othersto communicate with staff from other responding agencies, to exchange voice and/or data communications on demand and in real time. It is the term that describes how radio communication systems should operate between and among agencies and jurisdictions that respond to common emergencies. It is a common misconception that public safety responders can communicate efficiently and effectively in times of crisis. In many cases, public safety officers do not possess reliable radio communication systems that allow them to talk to their own agencies.

Popular television shows and movies portray public safety personnel as seamlessly coordinated in their communication and response efforts. The reality is quite different. When public safety agencies communicate with one another, it usually occurs through communication centersradio operators shuffling messages back and forth between agenciesor through commercial cellular services. Neither of these methods of transmitting critical, timely information is effective. Responding to emergency incidents and tactical situations requires reliable, dedicated equipment. Every second counts. The time it takes to relay messages through more than one radio communications system or dial a cell phone can affect outcomes. Busy signals or dead zones should not occur, although inevitably they will. Public safety must have priority access to wireless communications that is available at all times.

Why should public officials care?

The public looks to youtheir elected and appointed officialsto provide basic public safety, guidance and management during a crisis. You are responsible for making critical funding decisions using scarce taxpayer dollars. You understand the political dynamics in your area and

Equally as critical as interoperability is the need for basic communications within public safety agencies. When the issue of interoperability is raised, public safety officials respond that they are unable to even talk to their own personnel. The first priority must be to provide public safety with mission-critical radio communication systems that provide reliable agency-specificlaw enforcement, fire, EMScommunications. (Mission-critical radio communications are those required when life or property is at stake.) As jurisdictions build or upgrade current systems, that priority should be expanded to include the provision of reliable and interoperable local and regional communications, and, ultimately reliable and interoperable local, State, and Federal communications.

Why Cant We Talk?

page10

The [terrorist attack of the] Pentagon demonstrates in a very public way how critically impor

tant communications capabilities are for public safety agencies.

Imagine the challenge of 50 different local, State, and Federal

public safety agencies responding at the Pentagon900 different

radio users, operating on multiple radio systems, and attempting to

communicate with one another.

The Pentagon report found that the majority of local public safety

responders at the scene experienced little difficulty establishing

interoperable communications during the initial response. Due to

existing mutual aid agreements, most of the first responders had [common] radio frequencies preprogrammed into their portable

radio equipment and had frequently used the capability for

other mutual aid responses.

Robert E. Lee, Jr., PSWN [Public Safety Wireless Network]

Program Manager.

in the surrounding jurisdictions.

Ultimately, public safety is a core function for governments. Adequate public safety radio communications are essential to executing the public safety function promptly, effectively, and cost efficiently. Understanding the current status of public safety communications systems in your areaits capabilities and limitations and plans for upgrading or replacing those systemsis critical. If your public safety agencies cannot communicate directly with one another to coordinate life-saving activities, inevitably some lives may be lost.

What is the role of public officials?

Creating interoperability requires leadership, planning, and the development of partnerships among disparate groups at the local, State, and Federal level. Not only do governments at each of these levels have responsibility for the protection of lives and property, each expends substantial resources in an effort to meet these obligations. Without a collaborative approach to interoperability, new investments in equipment and infrastructure can actually make the problem worse by creating a "we just bought new equipment, thats their problem" situation. Interoperability is everyones problem.

The Nation is experiencing a changing public safety landscape. Budget problems have driven governments to leverage scarce resources. Homeland security needs have broadened public safetys mandate to include responses to bioterrorism and cyberterrorism. The health community has become more prominent in the publics eye as fear of West Nile virus, anthrax attacks, and the specter of smallpox grows. Citizens expect the public sector to function like a businessconsistent and effective customer service, everywhere and at any time. Ultimately, the public expects their lives and property to be protected by all govern-mentslocal, State, or Federalwithout distinction as to who responds to their needs. The public also expects governments to work smoothly and efficiently with the private sector when necessary.

Although the roles and responsibilities of public safety agencies are overlapping and at times unclear, it is clear that many public safety responses require effective coordination and communication among different agencies and levels of government. A high profile incidenta bombing, plane crash, natural disaster, or lost or kidnapped child tests the ability of all government and public safety organizations to

Why Cant We Talk?

page11 Why Cant They Just Use Cell Phones?

U nfortunately its not that simple. Although public safety personnel regularly use cellular phones, personal digital assistants (PDAs), and other commercial wireless devices and services, these devices are currently not suf

ficiently suited for public safety mission-critical com

munications during critical incidents.

Public safety officials cannot depend on com

mercial systems that can be overloaded and

unavailable. Experience has shown such sys

tems are often the most unreliable during

critical incidents when public demand over

whelms the systems.

Public safety officials have unique and demanding communications

requirements. Optimal public safety radio communication systems

require:

Dedicated channels and priority access that is available at all

times to handle unexpected emergencies.

Reliable one-to-many broadcast capability, a feature not generally

available in cellular systems.

Highly reliable and redundant networks that are engineered and

maintained to withstand natural disasters and other emergencies.

The best possible coverage within a given geographic area, with a

minimum of dead zones.

And, unique equipment designed for quick response in emergency

situationsdialing, waiting for call connection, and busy signals

are unacceptable during critical events when seconds can mean

the difference between life and death.

Why Cant We Talk?

page12

Is this issue a.) national,

b.) State, c.) regional, d.) local, or

e.) all of the above?

The answer: e.) All of the above.

Interoperability is an issue that affects every level of government and requires

public officials to work together at all levels.

Achieving interoperability is difficult work.

Interoperability, almost by definition, must include

local, State, regional, and national partnerships and input. Getting this tough

job done requires partnership and leadership at all levels by people who are

committed to the task and who can get and keep

the right stakeholders at the table.

mount a well-coordinated response. The emergency response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks in New York City and on the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia, vividly demonstrated that effective communication is an essential tool for those who protect life and property, regardless of who responds.

Local communities supply the majority of first responders and maintain local infrastructure. Additionally, local communities take advantage of resources such as firefighters and emergency medical services from nearby communities. But the communitys first responders cannot respond in a vacuum. From manmade and natural disasters to unique situations such as anthrax or fires on Federal land, there are times when local communities require State and Federal resources to respond effectively.

Who Is Public Safety?

According to definitions from the Public Safety Wireless Advisory Committee (PSWAC), public safety service providers perform emergency first response missions to protect and preserve life, property, and natural resources and to serve the public welfare through local, State, or Federal governments as prescribed by law. Public safety support providers include those whose primary mission might not fall within the classic public safety definition, but who may provide vital support to the general public and/or the public safety official. Law enforcement, fire, and EMS fit the first category, while transportation or public utility workers fit the second. Public safety service providers also include non-governmental organizations that perform public safety functions on behalf of the government. For example, a number of local governments contract with private groups for emergency medical services.

Why Cant We Talk?

page13 Public Safety: Everybodys Business

Day-to-Day Emergencies

Natural Disasters

Manmade Disasters

Homeland Security

LOCAL Police/Sheriff Firefighters

Emergency Medical Services

PRIVATE Utilities

Hospitals/Clinics Veterinarians

FEDERAL Federal Emergency

Management Agency (FEMA)

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)/ U.S. Marshals Service

Firefighters

Center for Disease Control and Prevention

(CDC)

Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)

STATE Criminal Investigators

Highway Patrol Game Wardens Agriculturalists

Medical Specialists Emergency Managers

This list is not inclusive of the many agencies that support public safety; it is a representative sample of the different levels of government and types of agencies, public and private, that support public safety.

Federal agencies support a number of agents within a State, many distributed in local communities, and numerous Federal agencies send stafffrom firefighters to FEMA agentsinto communities when trouble strikes. Their ability to communicate with local first responders and State agencies is critical to a successful response. State agencies also have a number of agents who operate within local communities, and numerous State agencies send staff such as criminal investigators or social workers into communities when trouble strikes. Their ability to communicate with local first responders and Federal agencies is critical to a successful response.

Public safety relies on many segments of private industry. First respon

Why Cant We Talk?

page14 ders rely on both public and private utilities to restore critical infrastructure such as electricity and telephone service, and on the gas companies to suppress leaks or control explosions. Local, State, and Federal agencies look to both public and private hospitals, clinics, and veterinarians to carry out public safety policy, including public outreach and first response. Homeland security activities have also created new requirements for diverse private industries such as transportation centers and suppliers of explosives and fertilizer. To effectively respond to emergencies, all levels of government and industry must plan for interoperabilitythe ability to be in voice contact and exchange data among all emergency respondersfrom the outset.

State and local governments must take the lead and collaboratively formulate an interoperability architecture that provides a roadmap for all to follow. Since the transition time for all emergency responders to become interoperable may be considerable, a statewide interoperability plan and/or set of standards that can accommodate short- and longterm solutions may be beneficial. Many States, including Indiana, North Carolina, and South Dakota have successfully implemented such architectures.

There are multiple benefits to collaborative planning, but it is difficult work. Stakeholders need to anticipate and respect each others roles and responsibilities, while recognizing that they all have a common missionthe protection of lives and property.

In short, there is a need for public officials at all levels of government to:

Understand the importance of interoperability; Be able to effectively communicate the benefits of interoperability

to the public; Understand the political and institutional barriers within the public

safety community that can impede interoperability; Facilitate collaborative planning among local, State, and Federal

government agencies; Encourage the development of flexible and open architectures and

standards; and Support funding for public safety agencies that work to achieve

interoperability within an agreed-upon plan.

In todays challenging world, from community safety to homeland security, effective public safety responses require that all governments work hand-in-hand for the protection of our citizens and their property.

CHAPTER 2: Five Key Reasons Why Public Safety Agencies Cant Talk Historically public safety agencies have depended upon their own stand-alone communication systems. There are not only different systems for different agencies within one jurisdiction, neighboring jurisdictions maintain their own systems, too. There are approximately 2.5 million public safety first responders in the United States working for 18,000 State and local law enforcement agencies, 26,000 fire departments and over 6,000 rescue departments, plus Federal and tribal law enforcement, and other agencies such as Federal and State emergency management, transportation, and the public utilities who need to talk to one another during critical incidents.

There are five key reasons public safety agencies cannot talkincompatible and aging communications equipment, limited and fragmented funding, limited and fragmented planning, a lack of coordination and cooperation, and inadequate and fragmented radio spectrum.

In many jurisdictions radio communications infrastructure and equipment can be 20 to 40 years old. Different jurisdictions use different equipment and different radio frequencies that cannot communicate with one another, just as different computer operating systems will not work together or an AM receiver will not accept an FM signal. There are limited uniform standards for technology and equipment.

There is limited funding to update or replace expensive radio communications equipment, and different communities and levels of governments have their own funding priorities and budget cycles.

Planning is limited and fragmented. Without adequate planning, time and money can be wasted and end results can be disappointing. Agencies, jurisdictions, and other levels of government compete for scarce dollars, inhibiting the partnership and leadership required to develop interoperability.

Why Cant We Talk?

page15

Can You Imagine?

Imagine that each local govern

ment designed and constructed

their own streets, roads, and trans

portation systems without consider

ing or coordinating with their

neighbors. While this might work

well for traveling within each juris

diction, travel among jurisdictions

would be a disaster. Streets would

not line up, and travel from city to

city would be nearly impossible.

With few exceptions, this analogy

effectively describes the current

condition of our public safety com

munications infrastructure. Most

public safety agencies cannot

directly communicate with other

public safety agencies in their

region, even when numerous agen

cies collectively respond to an

emergency.

Why Cant We Talk?

page16

One lesson learned after Hurricane Andrew and echoed during the wildfires of 1998 was that

Floridas communication systems are inadequate to

ensure an appropriate and integrated response

to disasters. Although we have made improvements

in the past 6 years, we still need to focus on

increasing our response capacities through improv

ing equipment and ongoing training for response

personnel.

Phillip Lewis, Chairman, Governors Wildfire Response

and Mitigation Review Committee

The human factor is a substantial obstacleagencies are naturally reluctant to give up management and control of their communications systems. Interoperability requires coordination and cooperation. It requires a certain amount of shared management, control, and policies and procedures.

There is a limited and fragmented amount of radio spectrum available to public safety.

Reason 1: Incompatible and aging communications equipment

The radio communication system infrastructure and equipmenttowers, control and dispatch stations, handheld and mobile radioscan be 20 to 40 years old in many jurisdictions. Antiquated systems and aging equipment mean escalating maintenance costs, reduced reliability, and obsolescence for public safety agencies. Public safety field personnel rely on their radios for assistance or back up in emergencies. Many radio systems in use today are obsolete or will become obsolete as manufacturer support is discontinued for older equipment. As systems deteriorate, field personnel are in danger and citizens are at risk, both in day-to-day and emergency operations, if they cannot exchange voice and data communications with dispatch and other field personnel.

The radio communication systems used by various agencies and jurisdictions are often at different stages of their life cycle. Some jurisdictions may expect their existing communications system to meet their needs for another 10 years, while others may have recently implemented new systems that they expect will meet their needs for the next 20 years. Others are barely functioning and in need of immediate

replacement.

Different jurisdictions use different equipment and different radio frequencies that cannot communicate with one another, just as different computer operating systems will not work together or an AM receiver will not accept an FM signal. Some of the newer digital radio communication systems will not even communicate on the same radio frequency because of proprietary software (software that is unique to a manufacturer and incompatible with other manufactured systems) that prevents communica

Why Cant We Talk?

page17 In virtually every major city and county in the United States, no interoperable communi

cations system exists to support police, fire departments, and county, State, regional, and

Federal response personnel during a major emergency. Radio frequencies are not avail

able to support the post-incident communication demands that will be placed on them,

and most cities have no redundant systems to use as backups. Portable radios will not

work in high-rise buildings unless the buildings are equipped with repeater systems. Most

U.S. cities have separate command-and-control functions for their police and fire depart

ments, and little to no coordination exists between the two organizations. Furthermore,

with few exceptions, first-responder commanders do not have access to secure radios,

telephones, or video-conferencing capabilities that can support communications with

county, State, and Federal emergency preparedness officials or National Guard leaders.

America Still Unprepared, America Still in Danger, Council on Foreign Relations, October 24, 2002.

tion. There are limited uniform standards for technology and equipment. Standards development must incorporate user input and encourage the development of compatible equipment.

There are interim solutions to the problem of incompatible equipment. Boulder County, Colorado, is using the ACU-1000, a gateway or interface between radio communication systems that use different equipment or frequencies, to connect disparate radio systems. The Boulder County Drug Task Force is a partnership of Denver area agencies, an area of seven counties and many municipalities, all working to reduce the drug problem. The agency radio systems are attached to the switching system of the ACU-1000. The dispatch center has a computer program that allows point and click "patching" or connection of various agencies. More than one patch group can be connected simultaneously to seven operations. The system was also successfully employed during the Colorado wild fire situation, where it was used to patch together two fire departments using different radio systems.

Reason 2: Limited and fragmented funding

There is limited funding to replace and update expensive communications equipment, and different communities and levels of government

Why Cant We Talk?

page18 have their own funding schedules and budget priorities. Regulations in one jurisdiction may conflict with those in another. Instead of combining dollars, funding is usually stovepiped to meet individual agency or jurisdiction needs. With few exceptions, public safety agencies have historically developed systems based on individual needs when planning aradio communication system. Spending decisions are based on old strategies that did not consider the need for interoperability. Requesting additional money to change radio communication systems is difficult as local, State, and Federal governments face budget short-falls. As any public official knows, there are many important interests competing for scarce dollars. Short-term strategies to incrementally improve existing radio communication systems with limited resources need to be explored and developed.

Technology is only one of the

tools

Interoperability requires more than equipmentcritical incident management, training, and operational policies and procedures that govern interoperable communication systems need to be in place as well. To achieve the unified response required in critical incidents, there must be an active effort from allfrom the public safety service providers to the State and local elected and appointed officialsto break down traditional jurisdictional boundaries and change the collective culture of operat-ing in isolation. But it requires morewithout disciplined management and training, the best radio communication systems will not provide interoperability. Public safety service providers need standard policies and procedures and training on radio equipment, including drills on mutual aid in critical incidents.

The State of Minnesota is saving money by combining funding as it is developing interoperable radio communication systems. In the 1980s, when Minneapolis and St. Paul experienced rapid population growth, new suburban law enforcement, fire, and EMS agencies were finding it difficult, and in some cases impossible, to find radio channels they could license for their two-way systems. Public safety professionals urged the legislature to develop a radio system that could utilize new spectrum bands that were being made available to public safety by the Federal Communications Commission and, at the same time, improve the ability of separate agencies to talk to one another.

The legislature authorized a planning commission that met for several years, developing a plan for an integrated region-wide radio system and, ultimately, passing legislation to create the Metropolitan Radio Board. At the time the Board was created, both the State of Minnesota and Hennepin County were planning separate upgrades of their outmoded radio systems. The separate legacy systems were, in effect, "silos" that could not easily communicate with outside entities. With passage of the legislation, the legislature hoped to encourage the idea of a shared infrastructure that would improve the ability to talk between agencies and, at the same time, provide significant economies of scale.

Minnesotas new 800 MHz radio system participants include the State of Minnesotas State Patrol, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT), and the Department of Natural Resources; the Metropolitan Council, including Metro Transit and Metro Mobility; Hennepin and Carver Counties; and the cities of Minneapolis and Richfield among others. MnDOTthe lead agency for the States twoway radiosfinanced half the cost, partly through general obligation bonds, and partly with monies from the States trunk highway fund. The other half of the capital costs have come from the Metropolitan

True interoperability must comprise a comprehensive strategy that combines radio communication sys-tems, radio training and drills, common terminolo-gy, standard operational procedures, and a unified incident command when the situation warrants it.

Why Cant We Talk?

page19 Radio Board, through revenue bonds issued on its behalf by the Metropolitan Council. The debt service is provided by 4 centsa part of the 9-1-1 surtaxcollected monthly on all wired and wireless telephone lines statewide. Planning is underway to design and build the second phase of the system, which entails extension to the remainder of the metro area. Another effort is planned in the coming session of the legislature to expand the system statewide and to review the governance structure.

Reason 3: Limited and fragmented planning

Planning for interoperability is limited and fragmented. Funding budgeted for the planning effort, a critical element of the process of developing interoperability, is still scarce. Without adequate planning, time and money can be wasted and end results can be disappointing. Agencies and jurisdictions, and different levels of government compete for scarce dollars, inhibiting the partnership and leadership required to develop interoperability.

The strength of the interoperability effort in Indiana was based on strong partnership, leadership, and coordinated planning. Indianas State Police Superintendent was a strong advocate of a statewide, integrated public safety communication system that any public safety agency could use. His goal was to bring together every public safety agencylocal, State, and Federal; fire, EMS, law enforcement, emergency management, and transportationin Indiana so they could communicate with one another. To build support and coordinate planning for the proposed integrated communications system, the major statewide law enforcement associations and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) came together to form the Integrated Law Enforcement Council (ILEC). Subsequently, the statewide organizations representing the fire service, EMS, and counties, cities, and towns came on board. This council became the major conduit for communication and planning between the local, State, and Federal governments. To bring together over 475 cities and towns, 92 counties, and innumerable townships to share a common vision required a massive communication effort. Over the first 4 years of the effort, the ILEC held 4 governors summits, numerous regional meetings, and focus groups. It conducted a survey of the public safety agencies and published a newsletter for all of the constituents of its members and for the members of the General Assembly and Congress. The first implementation of Project Hoosier SAFE-T as the initiative is known, was with demonstration projects in three areas of the State. This played a critical proof of concept role in the planning process.

Why Cant We Talk?

page20 In 1999, the Indiana General Assembly created the Integrated Public Safety Commission (IPSC), which serves as the governance body for Project Hoosier SAFE-T. Today, IPSC has begun the 4-year phased construction of its interoperable radio communication system. The first implementation in Johnson County has every public safety agency from the volunteer fire department to the sheriff s department to the Indiana State Police and Department of Natural Resources on the new system. As the system is implemented, communication is ongoing with the local, State, and Federal agencies that are interested in coming on the system. The local agencies are involved with the planning of the system design and have input into the location of the towers in their areas to maximize the systems benefit to them.

Reason 4: Lack of coordination and cooperation

The human factor is a substantial obstacleagencies are naturally reluctant to give up management and control of their communications systems. Interoperability requires coordination and cooperation. It requires a certain amount of shared management, control, and policies and procedures. There is no one solution for every jurisdiction, but jurisdictions should consider altering the current pattern of spending in isolation. Public officials can consider sharing costs and benefits with another jurisdiction or consider sharing infrastructure such as radio towers.

The Capital Wireless Integrated Network (CapWIN) is a multi-State, multijurisdictional wireless public safety system. This partnership of communities and agencies serving Washington, D.C., Maryland, and Virginia, is working together to develop an Integrated Mobile Wireless Public Safety and Transportation Network that will enable public safety and transportation officials from over 40 local, State, and Federal agencies to communicate with one another in real time. CapWIN will provide firefighters, law enforcement, transportation officials, and other authorized emergency personnel with wireless access to multiple government databases during critical incidents, giving first responders and other public safety officials pertinent information to make critical decisions.

The strength of CapWIN is the partnerships that have developed and the sense that agencies have to work together for the greater good of their citizens. Partnerships must be formed to share resources. Public safety agencies must change the way they have done business in the past and work together to meet the challenges of the future.

Reason 5: Limited and fragmented radio spectrum

There is a limited and fragmented amount of radio spectrum available to public safety. Radio spectrum is electronic real estatethe complete range of frequencies and channels that can be used for radio communications. Spectrum is the highway over which voice, data, and image communications travel. Radio spectrum, one of our Nations most valuable resources, is a finite resourcewhat exists today is all there ever will be. Public safety shares radio spectrum with television and radio broadcasters, government users, and other commercial consumers, who require spectrum for everything from garage door openers to cell phones. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has allocated certain frequencies to public safety, but it is inadequate and scattered across the spectrum, making it difficult for different agencies and jurisdictions to communicate. Initially, almost all public safety spectrum assignments were confined to the low frequency range, but as technology advanced and improved, transmission at higher frequencies became possible and the FCC assigned additional frequency bands to public safety. The resultpublic safety operates in 10 separate bands, which has added capacity, but which has also caused the fragmentation that characterizes the public safety spectrum today.

Public safety has changed, and emerging technologies that require the use of additional spectrum can assist in making them more responsive to the needs of the public they serve. New applications are quickly being viewed as critical to the public safety mission and are used for a wide variety of activities, such as geographic positioning, continuous vehicle location, report transmission, electronic messaging, and access to data repositories (e.g., National Crime Information Center). With these technologies, public safety can have real-time access to and transmit building plans, mug shots, fingerprints, and photos of accidents, injured persons, and crime scenes. Use of these technologies not only enhances the capability of individual units and agencies, it assists in activities in which interoperability is key, coordinating the activities of multiple agencies or personnel.

As technology advances and improves, more and more electronic devices, both public and private, require spectrum in order to operate. As a result, spectrum is becoming more scarce and more valuable, and is eagerly sought by competing private and government interests.

Why Cant We Talk?

page21

Todays public safety

agencies operate in

assigned frequencies

across 10 or more

different bands of radio

spectrum.

Why Cant We Talk?

page22 Spectrum 101 Radio spectrum is a finite resource. It is the electromagnetic real estate

in the sky. What exists today is all there will ever be. It cannot be created or increased. What exists must be re-allocated and better managed.

There is an inadequate amount of radio spectrum dedicated to public safety.

The limited amount of radio spectrum allocated to public safety is subject to interference from commercial wireless services, radio and TV broadcasters, and from our Mexican and Canadian neighbors.

The radio spectrum allocated to public safety is not contiguous. Narrow frequency bands for public safety are scattered throughout a wide spectrum range which severely limits the ability of public safety to communicate across agencies and jurisdictions.

The ability to harness radio spectrum is limited by technology. In most cases, industry, not public safety set the standards for equipment and software. Their needs, not those of public safety, drive research and development.

What types of emergencies like traffic

accidents typically occur in your area,

and which public safety agencies

would respond in each of them?

How about major crimes like bank

robberies or large-scale fires or disas-

ters like hurricanes? Who needs to

talk to one another every day?

Who should be in communication in

the first 8 hours of an emergency?

Who will need to be added to that

initial group if the emergency contin-

ues for longer than 8 hours?

CHAPTER 3: Are You Prepared? Assessing Interoperability

What is the status of your public safety radio communications?

Consider what happens when there is a major traffic accident on one of our countrys interstate highways. In most areas, multiple agencies respond, including the State and local law enforcement, local firefighters, local emergency medical personnel, transportation or highway department personnel, and, depending on the circumstances, hazardous materials teams.

Why Cant We Talk?

page23

To develop a basic snapshot

of interoperability, ask the

following questions:

Unfortunately, in most areas, few if any of these agencies can share information directly with one another through their radio communication systems. They must either rely on face-to-face communication, which can waste precious minutes, or relay information through independent communications and dispatch centers.

There are assessment tools that can be used to determine the level of interoperability in your community, region, or State. At the end of this guide, there are tools for public officials to use to assess current interoperability, existing radio communications infrastructure, and financial resources.

Frequently occurring emergencies

Some types of emergencies occur on an almost daily basis. These include major traffic accidents, violent crimes, hostage situations,

Why Cant We Talk?

page24

It had been 30 years since Indiana residents had been

witness to a blizzard like the one that slammed into northwest Indiana in early

1998. Roads were blocked with stranded vehi

cles and desperate drivers inside awaited rescue.

Rescue efforts were slowed when law enforcement,

emergency medical services, and the department of

transportation could not communicate with one

another on their radios during the snowstorm.

Les Miller, Chair, Governance Working Group

Executive Director, Integrated Public Safety

Commission, Indiana State Police

industrial accidents, and similar incidents. Think about what types of incidents occur in your community, State or region. Which agencies would be likely to respond to these emergencies? Typically, several law enforcement agenciesthe police, sheriff, State Patrol, etc.would respond to these incidents. In addition, several emergency service agenciesthe fire department, EMS, and Hazmat teamsmight also respond.

While often not considered part of the public safety response, public infrastructure agencies, such as transportation, public works, and the utilities, provide important services in these emergencies and cannot be overlooked.

Which of these agencies can directly communicate through voice and/or data to share information? More than likely, few, if any, of these agencies can directly communicate with one another.

Major crimes or incidents

Major crimes or incidents include bank robberies, child kidnappings, large-scale fires, chemical leaks, large-scale industrial accidents, train derailments, school shootings, airplane crashes, and similar occurrences. Have any of these incidents occurred in your area or could they? Which agencies would be needed to respond to or be used in mitigating the effects of these incidents? Multiple law enforcement, emergency services, and public safety support agencies would likely respond. On the way to the scene and after arrival, who would be able to directly communicate with one another?

Large-scale disasters or incidents

Large-scale disasters and incidents include hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, terrorist attacks, and similar incidents. Which of these events have affected or have the potential to affect your jurisdiction? No jurisdiction is immune.

Response by any number of agencies, including State and possibly Federal emergency management agencies, would be needed during and after the incident. Returning to some sense of normalcy would require the total cooperation of these agencies. Cooperation requires the ability to exchange information. On-the-scene, real-time radio

communication across typical communication boundaries is a necessity. Communication is the key to minimizing loss to life and property.

What radio communications system resources do you have?

Radio communications systems are expensive. Costs will vary depending on the level at which the system is to be developed, used, and/or shared and whether systems will be upgraded, replaced, or designed from scratch. While there is no way to accurately assess the costs of such systems, they can range from a few hundreds or thousands of dollars to more than a billion dollars. At the State level, replacing basic radio systems for a single public safety agency can cost between $100 million and $300 million. When considering statewide systems that involve multiple agencies, the costs are in the hundreds of millions, even as much as $1 billion for large State efforts, such as New York. Figures cited for developing interoperability nationwide have ranged from $18 billion to three times that figure. With this financial stake, it is important that systems meet current and future needs.

Ensuring that new communications systems are not obsolete before the first radio is issued is a daunting task. Planning is critical and must begin with an assessment of existing radio communication systems to establish a baseline that includes an analysis of operational processes how and under what conditions radio communications operate in their current state, and technical operationsthe equipment and software that allow radio communication systems to work.

Where do you need to be?

In everyday events and major incidents, agencies have different communication needs and requirements. Research different past events and possible major incidents to determine the answers to the following questions.

With whom do I need to communicate?

Local, State, and Federal public safety and transportation agencies Other government agencies

Why Cant We Talk?

page25

The Kinneola, California, firestorm drew thousands of firefighters, the U.S. Forest Service, local law enforcement, the Highway Patrol, and emergency medical services to support firefighting and rescue efforts. Also on site were the Red Cross, the Salvation Army, Los Angeles Parks and Recreation, utility companies, railroad and transportation, volunteers, and the media. As the fire raged out of control, the VHF channels used for tactical situations became overloaded and communications interoperability became increasingly difficult. Although all fire departments were supposed to be equipped with VHF radios, some did not have them and others had changed the designations of the tactical channels. Source: ATLAS Project Report

Why Cant We Talk?

page26 State and Federal emergency management agencies Local, State, and Federal government officials Media Medical community Utilities Private agencies

How do I need to communicate?

Direct voice communication Direct data communication with access to multiple data sources Cellular telephone Fax Email Web site

What information do I need to exchange?

Records management information CAD (Computer Aided Dispatch) data Intelligence information Unit status Incident management information Traffic information Weather information Road information Bureau/Department of Motor Vehicle information Criminal history, stolen property, wants and warrant information Pictures, including mug shots, incident and accident scene photos Inventories/lists of resources available and /or needed Building plans Hazardous materials handling information Medical information Direct voice interaction Direct data messaging Other data sources

When do I need to exchange information and communicate?

Should this communication link be available at all times? Should the communication link have to be connected by someone? How much time is acceptable to develop this communication link?

Why Cant We Talk?

page27

Under what circumstances does the agency need to communicate?

Criminal investigations Traffic-related incidents Manmade and/or natural disasters Terrorist attacks Routine duties Special events (sporting events, civil distur

bances, demonstration, holidays, etc.) Other functions

Where are you now?

Identify your current communication/information systems status.

My agency can communicate with the following agencies:

Local, State, and Federal public safety and transportation agencies Other government agencies Local, State, and Federal government officials State and Federal emergency management agencies Media Medical community Utilities Private agencies (Which ones are key to your agency?)

My agency can communicate using the following methods:

Direct voice communication Direct data communication with access to multiple data sources Cellular telephone Fax Email Web site

Which agencies need to

communicate but cant do

so using the current radio

communication systems?

How can you accomplish

this critical task?

Why Cant We Talk?

page28 My agency can exchange the following information: Records management information CAD (Computer Aided Dispatch) data Intelligence information Unit status Incident management information Traffic information Weather information Road information Bureau/Department of Motor Vehicle information Criminal history, stolen property, wants and warrant information Pictures, including mug shots, incident and accident scene photos Building plans Hazardous materials handling information Medical information Direct voice interaction Direct data messaging Other data sources (list)

The communications links are available:

At all times Link has to be connected by someone (e.g., physically established

by dispatch personnel) The time is acceptable to develop this communication link

Under the following circumstances, the agency can communicate:

Criminal investigations Traffic-related incidents Major manmade or natural disasters Terrorist attacks Routine duties Special events (sporting events, civil disturbances, demonstrations,

holidays, etc.) Other functions (list)

Why Cant We Talk?

page29How do you get where you need to be?

Who should be involved in developing the interoperability plan?

Who are the stakeholders that need to be involved in the planning? Which decisionmakers should be involved in planning? What type of technical and field expertise will be needed to devel

op the plan? Will outside expertise be needed to develop this plan?

What are the roles and responsibilities of all agencies that are involved?

Law enforcement Transportation Emergency medical services Fire Utilities Emergency management Other (list)

Will addressing this problem enhance your ability to serve and protect the citizens?

Is the plan cost effective? Are goals realistic and attainable?

Who are potential partners, champions, and allies?

Who has resources that can be shared to help agencies involved accomplish their missions?

Who understands the communications problems faced by those involved and is willing to champion the process?

How can the plan include shared networks and resources? How can trust be built into developing the plan? How can all parties feel ownership in this plan? How can more of them be enlisted to join the effort? What political partners, champions, and allies can be developed? What media partners, champions, and allies can be developed?

Why Cant We Talk?

page30 What are the priorities of the plan? What should be done in the first phase (most critical)? How many phases will the plan require? How much time is needed to accomplish the plan? ( controlling

expectations)

What are the technical solutions available to address the problem?

Technical plan

What funding is available to address the problem?

Grant funds (local, State, Federal, private) General funds

What can I do right now?

There are a number of interim solutions that can be implemented in the short term to improve the level of communications interoperability. Some of these solutions include the following:

Deploying second radios In jurisdictions where there is a need to communicate with another jurisdiction with an incompatible system, one solution is to provide a second radio in patrol cars or fire or EMS vehicles. If the radio installed is a VHF or UHF unit, this can be a relatively low-cost solution. There are some disadvantagesit can be difficult for personnel to monitor different systems, especially during an emergency, and installation space for additional radios is often at a premium in modern emergency vehicles. Most important, interoperability occurs only when within the coverage of the other radio system or when talking point to point.

Channel patching Various technologies are available to "patch" or connect different radio frequencies. The simplest form of patching is installing a radio that can access another system in the dispatch center and making an audio patch with wiring. A more technologically advanced example of patching, the ACU-1000, connects each attached radio through a switching system. The dispatch center has a computer program that allows point and click connection of various agencies. More than one patch group can be connected simultaneously to

Why Cant We Talk?

page31 Special funds Other funds (list possible sources)

Once the answers to these questions have been carefully considered, you will have a more accurate understanding of communication system needs and how to ensure that your system meets current and future needs.

What financial resources are spent on public safety communications?

The nationwide investment in radio systems and supporting infrastructures for most public safety and public service interoperability is already substantial. As agencies replace aging equipment and adopt new technologies, the amount of money invested in telecommunications equipment will continue to grow. What existing radio communi-

Interim solutions to improve interoperability

a number of operations, and cell phones can also be connected to other radio frequencies. Unless the ACU-1000 serves as a transmission site, it and other forms of patching work only in those areas where system coverage overlaps. Other similar products exist.

Radio cache In areas where day-to-day and first response mutual aid interoperability is good, a cache or stored supply, of portable radios can be used to provide interoperability to second-echelon mutual aid. As an incident develops, new personnel arrive at the staging area. As assignments are made, personnel are given portable radios with the channels necessary to communicate with incident command. Portables are multi-channeled and on-the-spot programmable so that additional channels can be added as needed for tactical operations.

Use of commercial services In some circumstances, cell phones, and other commercial services, can bridge an interoperability gap. The applicability of these solutions for general public safety communications is limited by cost and lack of flexibility. The Federal government is working with the commercial services industry to provide priority access services over cellular phone systems to a limited number of public officials across the country.

Why Cant We Talk?

page32

Emerging Technologies

Technology is changing at a rapid, almost exponential rate. Future communication systems may be web based or use satellite technology. As you plan, consider how technology development may affect your long-term interoperability solutions.

Software defined radios Not yet universally available or optimized, software defined radios are a different concept than the traditional radios that are limited by their design to operate in a narrow portion of the radio spectrum. A software defined radio is a universal radio that can talk to many different types of radios. It uses software to perform all of its signal processing, allowing a single communications device to communicate with many different wireless systems by simply running different software. For example, a device can be re-programmed to be an analog cellular phone, a digital PCS phone, a cordless home phone or even a garage door opener, baby monitor, or television. In addition to incorporating multiple communication devices into one, a software radio can be upgraded to enable new standards and services. Technical and regulatory hurdles must be overcome before software defined radios become a reality.

i

i

t

f

cations infrastructure do you already have? What financial resources are budgeted for public safety communications? What are you already spendng on public safety communications? Developing interoperability does not necessarily require new spendingplanning for interoperability can be ncorporated into the process of replacing and upgrading radio communication systems.

Change is difficult and when change comes with a price tag, it becomes even more difficult. Prior to looking outside of the community, jurisdicion, region, or State for possible solutions, a complete assessment of the

resourcesboth the existing public safety communications system infrastructure and financial resourcesthat already exist must be conducted. Once this list is developed, then appropriate actions can be determined to ill in the gaps. Each community, region, or State has a reservoir of hid

den or untapped resources. Conducting this assessment avoids the duplication of existing resources and unwise expenditures of time and money.

Agencies with similar needs may be duplicating each others purchases or could benefit by working together to achieve economies of scale. How much could you ultimately save if you coordinated planning and spending with other agencies or jurisdictions in your community, region, or State? For example, the cost to procure equipment for a 5-channel digital trunked radio system with 500 users and a single base station site, as would be found in a medium-sized community with a population of 75,000 to 100,000, has been estimated by industry to cost around $2,700 per user. If this community could consolidate with surrounding communities to implement a 20-channel digital trunked radio system with approximately 2,400 users and 2 base station sites, as would commonly serve a population base of 375,000 to 500,000, the cost per user drops to $2,400a savings of about $300 per user or a savings to the original community of 500 users totaling about $150,000.

It should be noted that this cost analysis example highlights the costs of standalone versus consolidated systems, based upon the cost reductions that can be obtained through large purchases and the efficiencies obtained with larger trunked radio systems. This example is based on implementing new technology, digital trunked radios in the radio bands most commonly used by todays first responders, primarily fire and law enforcement departments.

With annual radio system maintenance costs of about 10 percent of equipment costs, this same community of 500 users would double this savings over the typical 10-year life of this radio system. Importantly, this savings is for equipment costs only. Ongoing personnel and equipment savings from the consolidation of dispatch centers can easily exceed this equipment savings each year. A major advantage of consolidation is that interoperability among the users of the consolidated system is inherent in the design of the system, assuming proper operational guidelines are developed by the participating agencies.

CHAPTER 4: How Can You Achieve Interoperability?

Achieving interoperability is a challenging job. This is not a "one size fits all" problem and there is no single solution. There are short- and long-term strategies for solving interoperabilitysome involve improving coordination and cooperation, while other strategies require longer term planning and implementation of new systems, policies, and operating procedures. Understand what your first responders need. Planning needs to include policies and procedures, developing a governing structure, and identifying potential resources. Encourage realistic expectations, solutions take time.

Developing a plan for improving interoperability

A well-developed, coordinated plan is the cornerstone to any successful initiative and accomplishes the following:

Defines the vision, goals, and objectives of what you are ultimately trying to accomplish.

Describes the specific problems or needs that are to be addressed.

Identifies any potential partners and their roles and staffing requirements.

Proposes a detailed budget and timeline.

Outlines a marketing strategy.

Includes an operational plan that addresses how the project will be funded now and in the future.

Without adequate planning you will not know what you have, where

Why Cant We Talk?

page33

Understand what your

first responders need.

Planning needs to

include policies and

procedures, developing

a governing structure,

and identifying poten

tial resources.

Why Cant We Talk?

page34 you want to go, or what you need to get there. Mistakes will be made, time and money will be wasted, and the end result may not be what you intended.

Role of elected and appointed officials in the planning process

Elected and appointed officials are responsible for approving the annual public safety budget. In this role, they can help to eliminate barriers to interoperability by encouraging public safety agencies to engage in cooperative planning, investment, and operations.

Elected and appointed officials should consider asking their public safety agencies the following questions:

What is the public safety vision of an interoperable radio communication system? What are the goals and objectives? What actions can elected and appointed officials take to help make interoperability a reality?

Is there a well thought-out, coordinated plan to develop interoperable radio communication systems for public safety agencies within the jurisdiction? If not, why not? Has the elected or appointed official read or been briefed on the plan?

Planning principles

A plan is developed by examining existing conditions and needs, considering opportunities and alternatives, and adopting goals and objectives. Interoperability plans should comprise the following componentsa communications system plan; a deployment plan; an operations, maintenance, and training plan; and a financial plan.

There are several principles to be considered when developing a plan for interoperability:

It should be standards driven. It is easier for different jurisdictions or different departments to work together if they develop mutually agreed upon standards or values.

It should be scalable. The solution should be able to accommodate

Why Cant We Talk?

page35 more than one range or level. For instance, it should be able to be used locally between agencies or localities, statewide, and at multi-state and national levels

It should provide an ROI [Return on Investment]. The planners should be able to determine the return on the resources invested to the community, region, or State so constituents and agencies can understand what is gained in human and financial terms by developing interoperability.

It should allow for incremental development. Most States, regions and communities do not have the resources to develop full interoperability in one budget cycle. Develop a plan that can get the job done in smaller steps.

Interoperability Planning Process Flow Chart

Identify steering group

technical teams

Establish clear roles & responsibilities

Identify what the plan should

address

Convene Stakeholders

& System Users

Map Existing Core Functions, Work & Decision Making

Processes

Complete Needs Assessment for

Communications System

& Infrastructure Technology

Define Interoperable

Communications System You Want

What hardware & software do you have?

What functional,technical & performancerequirementsexist?

What legal or business restrictions exist?

Source: Public Safety Wireless Network (PSWN) Program

Identify what information is needed to craft

the plan

Develop new goals, objectives & strategies

Establish governance structure

Evaluate & select technological alternatives

Develop measuring or tracking system.

Identify consequences

Identify new stakeholders, what resources required

Develop mission & vision

statement

Identify interagency or interlocality stakeholders

work, & decision making processes

Identify issues the plan must address

Why Cant We Talk?

page36 It should ensure internal and external security. Any architecture developed to create interoperability should be able to maintain existing secured information and maintain the privacy level for data required by law.

It should ensure there is interface with political approval processes and that it can accommodate normal budget cycles, legislative structures, agency roles, and decision-making cycles.

Why Cant We Talk?

page37

CHAPTER 5: Governance Structures for Improving Interoperability Making interoperability a reality requires public safety agencies and jurisdictions to work together to develop common solutions and systems. The primary reason public safety radio communication systems are not interoperable today is because agencies within jurisdictions and neighboring jurisdictions have developed radio communication systems independently.

What is a governance structure?

A governance structure is the group that is authorized to make decisions about and oversee the implementation of an interoperability initiative. The governance structure can be an existing board, committee, council, or commission that has been authorized for this job, or a board, committee, council, or commission that has been created specifically to oversee the interoperability initiative. Governance can also be the shared responsibility of two or more entities or individuals.

Why create a governance structure?

Technology itself cannot solve all problems and even the best-equipped effort will soon bog down without an effective governing body to chart its course. A well-defined governance structure improves the process of any major project, particularly the challenging process of developing interoperability, by enhancing communication, coordination, and cooperation; establishing guidelines and policies; and reducing turf battles. Governance structures play a crucial role in securing funding for local, regional, and State efforts. For many agencies, jurisdictions, and States, funding is a key barrier to interoperabilityfunding for both the interoperability initiative itself and funding for the governance structure that will plan and implement the effort.

The primary reason public

safety radio communica

tion systems are not inter-

operable today is because

agencies within jurisdic

tions and neighboring juris

dictions have developed

radio communication sys

tems independently.

Why Cant We Talk?

page38 Another important advantage of a governance structure is the level of jurisdictional and agency equality it brings to the effort. It can set the stage for involvement by small agencies that might not otherwise have the resources or the inclination to participate in a large agency or jurisdiction dominated regional consortium.

Governance structures must weather political storms and other changes. The governance structure and its vision, goals, and objectives may need to be reviewed as the interoperability effort moves forward to ensure that it continues to meet the needs of the effort as it evolves. Because elected and appointed officials typically hold seats on the board or committees, the governance structure is affected by political cycles. The composition of the structure may change radically every 2 to 4 years, and it is possible to lose a strong supporter; however, this does not need to overshadow the important contributions that elected officials can make to the governance structure. In this context, the support for and process of the interoperability effort must become institutionalized.

What do public officials need to know?

To exercise leadership successfully, public officials do not need to become radio communication technology experts, but they do need to know the answers to the following questions.

What vision of interoperability do the public safety agencies have? What do they hope to accomplish? What is the mission of the interoperability effort?

What are the goals and objectives of the interoperability effort? What do you want to achieve and how can you get there? What problems do you want to solve? What systems need to be interoperable to solve the problems identified?

Who are the stakeholders? Who are the lead agencies, if any? Who are the users and how many would be impacted as a result of interoperability?

What kind of agreement do you need to create a governance board? Memorandum of understanding (MOU), joint powers agreement, statute or ordinance, or informal guidelines.

Which agencies and officials should be included in the governance board? Law enforcement, including State police, State patrol, sheriff and police; fire department; EMS; transportation; social services; public works; schools; elected and appointed officials; and others.

Why Cant We Talk?

page39The governance structure generally performs the following tasks:

Defines a vision for public safety communication interoperability that addresses the nature, scope, and objectives of the effort.

Develops a strategy for implementing interoperability.

Formulates and approves policy to guide implementation and operation of the interoperability system.

Oversees implementation-related activities, including infrastructure, equipment, and others.

Identifies and addresses implementation issues, including resolving conflicts and overcoming obstacles affecting interoperability.

Identifies and quantifies fiscal and other resource requirements associated with the implementation of an interoperability effort.

Facilitates cooperation and collaboration among the principals within participating agencies.

The additional key elementleadership

Leadership is key to the success of the interoperability initiative. Leadership can come from political leaders, agency heads, public safety, or well-respected members of the community, region, or State. Because of the particular challenges of developing interoperability, it is important that the leader or leaders assume the role of project "champion." Public officials are faced with hundreds of competing needs as they make decisions that define policy and fund government services. Because there are so many priorities, a champion must be able to emphasize and keep alive the significance and importance of the interoperability issue for the decisionmaking body.

A leader must be committed to the vision and goals of the effort and able to focus on the project until its completion. An effective leader must be knowledgeable about the issues and able to communicate the benefits of interoperability to the general public. An effective leader

Fire and rescue departments from different jurisdictions routinely work together to provide emergency services to the public, but they cannot always communicate with one another. It is critically important that the entire fire and emergency services community support the need for improved communications interoperability and additional spectrum. State and municipal officials and the organizations that represent them nationally, working with emergency first responders, are an integral part of this significant effort to improve interoperability.

Chief Randy Bruegman, President, International